He said the council had caused great distress to many elderly residents and it was now becoming clear that, “Creekmoor was always going to be the target for this, no matter what obstacles were going to be encountered.”

Another Creekmoor resident Edward Webster said he was “disappointed” that work appeared to have been started without planning permission.

“The application does not go to committee until next month so one assumes the outcome is already known,” he said. “I am told the work is to prevent birds nesting which would delay development.”

And Terry Stewart, of Dorset Council for the Protection of Rural England has called for work to be stopped until Dorset Wildlife Trust evaluates the site.

“When the park and ride site was approved, I understood that the wood next to it and the marsh were designated as protected,” he said.

“So it is wrong to clear the site until the full public consultation and the planning approval processes have been completed.”

Ward councillor Judy Butt said: “There is concern by residents that Borough of Poole are setting a poor example by starting work on the site at cost to council tax payers before planning permission has been granted.”

Shaun Robson, head of environmental and consumer protection said: “We can confirm to residents that no construction work has started on the Marshes End site and no materials have been delivered.

“The only action that has been taken so far relates to site clearance in preparation for site surveys which will be carried out to support the planning application.”

He said building materials that had been delivered to the neighbouring park and ride site were for a Three Towns Travel project and would be there temporarily.

Just needs some of the residents to acquire suitable vehicles that will enable them to become part time travellers so that the site is always full, get my drift?

Just needs some of the residents to acquire suitable vehicles that will enable them to become part time travellers so that the site is always full, get my drift?The-Bleeding-Obvious

Just needs some of the residents to acquire suitable vehicles that will enable them to become part time travellers so that the site is always full, get my drift?

Score: 41

Jo__Go
9:20am Mon 10 Feb 14

Somebody is getting ahead of themselves at Phil's Folly...

Somebody is getting ahead of themselves at Phil's Folly...Jo__Go

Somebody is getting ahead of themselves at Phil's Folly...

Score: 8

smhinto
9:37am Mon 10 Feb 14

It is because that the plan was always going to go ahead regardless of public opinion or what people think.
.
Typical Council policy I'm afraid.

It is because that the plan was always going to go ahead regardless of public opinion or what people think.
.
Typical Council policy I'm afraid.smhinto

It is because that the plan was always going to go ahead regardless of public opinion or what people think.
.
Typical Council policy I'm afraid.

Score: 21

Carolyn43
9:38am Mon 10 Feb 14

Note that the council refers to the site as Marshes End, except on the planning application where they've hidden the location under the title 'Safety Drive' so it's difficult to find to make a comment. Obviously they expect more comments objecting than they expect comments in support so are making it difficult to make a comment at all.
......
If there is any important wildlife, council workers tramping about on waterlogged ground (in fact it's a bog at the moment) won't do it a lot of good, but, with the secrecy with which this has been planned, perhaps that's the intention.

Note that the council refers to the site as Marshes End, except on the planning application where they've hidden the location under the title 'Safety Drive' so it's difficult to find to make a comment. Obviously they expect more comments objecting than they expect comments in support so are making it difficult to make a comment at all.
......
If there is any important wildlife, council workers tramping about on waterlogged ground (in fact it's a bog at the moment) won't do it a lot of good, but, with the secrecy with which this has been planned, perhaps that's the intention.Carolyn43

Note that the council refers to the site as Marshes End, except on the planning application where they've hidden the location under the title 'Safety Drive' so it's difficult to find to make a comment. Obviously they expect more comments objecting than they expect comments in support so are making it difficult to make a comment at all.
......
If there is any important wildlife, council workers tramping about on waterlogged ground (in fact it's a bog at the moment) won't do it a lot of good, but, with the secrecy with which this has been planned, perhaps that's the intention.

Score: 15

DorsetFerret
9:51am Mon 10 Feb 14

More dirty tricks from this shady council but am I missing something. What is "The three town travel project"?

More dirty tricks from this shady council but am I missing something. What is "The three town travel project"?DorsetFerret

More dirty tricks from this shady council but am I missing something. What is "The three town travel project"?

Score: 10

Carolyn43
10:35am Mon 10 Feb 14

DorsetFerret wrote…

More dirty tricks from this shady council but am I missing something. What is "The three town travel project"?

Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch have got £12.1 million between them from the government to make travel improvements along main routes. What Poole is "improving" is on:
.......
http://www.boroughof
poole.com/transport-
and-streets/transpor
t-policy/poole-three
-towns-travel/pooles
-three-towns-travel-
projects/
.......
Note that "consultation" on improvements to Ashley Road rook place. Anyone hear about that? Anyone notice improvements on what has been listed as completed?
......
Can't see anything on the list about anything going on near the Park and Ride, where they've put materials which they say are not for the travellers' site. They really do think residents are stupid.
.......
Of course, if the travellers' site does go ahead and the travellers' refuse to use it for very good reasons that have been included in objections, then they'll either go to Bournemouth or onto private land. Poole council won't have the problem or expense of moving them on, but they could still end up parking on private land near you and others will have the problem of moving them instead.

[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
More dirty tricks from this shady council but am I missing something. What is "The three town travel project"?[/p][/quote]Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch have got £12.1 million between them from the government to make travel improvements along main routes. What Poole is "improving" is on:
.......
http://www.boroughof
poole.com/transport-
and-streets/transpor
t-policy/poole-three
-towns-travel/pooles
-three-towns-travel-
projects/
.......
Note that "consultation" on improvements to Ashley Road rook place. Anyone hear about that? Anyone notice improvements on what has been listed as completed?
......
Can't see anything on the list about anything going on near the Park and Ride, where they've put materials which they say are not for the travellers' site. They really do think residents are stupid.
.......
Of course, if the travellers' site does go ahead and the travellers' refuse to use it for very good reasons that have been included in objections, then they'll either go to Bournemouth or onto private land. Poole council won't have the problem or expense of moving them on, but they could still end up parking on private land near you and others will have the problem of moving them instead.Carolyn43

DorsetFerret wrote…

More dirty tricks from this shady council but am I missing something. What is "The three town travel project"?

Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch have got £12.1 million between them from the government to make travel improvements along main routes. What Poole is "improving" is on:
.......
http://www.boroughof
poole.com/transport-
and-streets/transpor
t-policy/poole-three
-towns-travel/pooles
-three-towns-travel-
projects/
.......
Note that "consultation" on improvements to Ashley Road rook place. Anyone hear about that? Anyone notice improvements on what has been listed as completed?
......
Can't see anything on the list about anything going on near the Park and Ride, where they've put materials which they say are not for the travellers' site. They really do think residents are stupid.
.......
Of course, if the travellers' site does go ahead and the travellers' refuse to use it for very good reasons that have been included in objections, then they'll either go to Bournemouth or onto private land. Poole council won't have the problem or expense of moving them on, but they could still end up parking on private land near you and others will have the problem of moving them instead.

Score: 8

speedy231278
10:56am Mon 10 Feb 14

So, it's a done deal then. Surprise, surprise.

So, it's a done deal then. Surprise, surprise.speedy231278

So, it's a done deal then. Surprise, surprise.

Score: 12

ljw1414
11:04am Mon 10 Feb 14

Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am

Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I amljw1414

Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am

Score: 17

muscliffman
11:11am Mon 10 Feb 14

Come on Poole Council at least get the dodgy explanations right, just look to your Christchurch Council colleagues for a fine example!

Because Poole Council should have said that this 'traveller' site work is of course in connection with an 'archaeological survey' - similar to the one that 'accidently' ensured that several Christchurch (TPO) protected trees were controversially felled by developers the other day.

Once again the serious question arises - do some of our Public Servants now regard themselves as our unaccountable Masters ? The smell from Creekmoor just keeps getting worse.

Come on Poole Council at least get the dodgy explanations right, just look to your Christchurch Council colleagues for a fine example!
Because Poole Council should have said that this 'traveller' site work is of course in connection with an 'archaeological survey' - similar to the one that 'accidently' ensured that several Christchurch (TPO) protected trees were controversially felled by developers the other day.
Once again the serious question arises - do some of our Public Servants now regard themselves as our unaccountable Masters ? The smell from Creekmoor just keeps getting worse.muscliffman

Come on Poole Council at least get the dodgy explanations right, just look to your Christchurch Council colleagues for a fine example!

Because Poole Council should have said that this 'traveller' site work is of course in connection with an 'archaeological survey' - similar to the one that 'accidently' ensured that several Christchurch (TPO) protected trees were controversially felled by developers the other day.

Once again the serious question arises - do some of our Public Servants now regard themselves as our unaccountable Masters ? The smell from Creekmoor just keeps getting worse.

Score: 18

Carolyn43
11:41am Mon 10 Feb 14

ljw1414 wrote…

Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am

The council have said that the gates will be locked. When the travellers arrive, someone from the council will unlock the gates, and when they leave they'll lock them again.
....
They will be allowed to stay on the site for up to 30 days.
.......
Foolproof.

[quote][p][bold]ljw1414[/bold] wrote:
Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am[/p][/quote]The council have said that the gates will be locked. When the travellers arrive, someone from the council will unlock the gates, and when they leave they'll lock them again.
....
They will be allowed to stay on the site for up to 30 days.
.......
Foolproof.Carolyn43

ljw1414 wrote…

Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am

The council have said that the gates will be locked. When the travellers arrive, someone from the council will unlock the gates, and when they leave they'll lock them again.
....
They will be allowed to stay on the site for up to 30 days.
.......
Foolproof.

Score: 5

pd7
11:42am Mon 10 Feb 14

NIMBY's

NIMBY'spd7

NIMBY's

Score: -23

BIGTONE
12:32pm Mon 10 Feb 14

pd7 wrote…

NIMBY's

Dik ed

[quote][p][bold]pd7[/bold] wrote:
NIMBY's[/p][/quote]Dik edBIGTONE

pd7 wrote…

NIMBY's

Dik ed

Score: 7

Letcommonsenseprevail
12:34pm Mon 10 Feb 14

All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????

All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????Letcommonsenseprevail

All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????

Score: 10

ljw1414
12:34pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Carolyn43 wrote…

ljw1414 wrote…

Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am

The council have said that the gates will be locked. When the travellers arrive, someone from the council will unlock the gates, and when they leave they'll lock them again.
....
They will be allowed to stay on the site for up to 30 days.
.......
Foolproof.

Hahahaha oh right that's going to work then ,fantastic logic !

[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ljw1414[/bold] wrote:
Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am[/p][/quote]The council have said that the gates will be locked. When the travellers arrive, someone from the council will unlock the gates, and when they leave they'll lock them again.
....
They will be allowed to stay on the site for up to 30 days.
.......
Foolproof.[/p][/quote]Hahahaha oh right that's going to work then ,fantastic logic !ljw1414

Carolyn43 wrote…

ljw1414 wrote…

Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am

The council have said that the gates will be locked. When the travellers arrive, someone from the council will unlock the gates, and when they leave they'll lock them again.
....
They will be allowed to stay on the site for up to 30 days.
.......
Foolproof.

Hahahaha oh right that's going to work then ,fantastic logic !

Score: 1

Letcommonsenseprevail
12:35pm Mon 10 Feb 14

pd7 wrote…

NIMBY's

Where do you live pdo7? we can ask the council to put travellers in your front garden and see how you like it.................

[quote][p][bold]pd7[/bold] wrote:
NIMBY's[/p][/quote]Where do you live pdo7? we can ask the council to put travellers in your front garden and see how you like it.................Letcommonsenseprevail

pd7 wrote…

NIMBY's

Where do you live pdo7? we can ask the council to put travellers in your front garden and see how you like it.................

Score: 9

mw2010
12:36pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)mw2010

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)

Score: 5

skippy123
12:51pm Mon 10 Feb 14

marshes end is a good place they might just sink down and never be seen again

marshes end is a good place they might just sink down and never be seen againskippy123

marshes end is a good place they might just sink down and never be seen again

Score: 8

speedy231278
1:04pm Mon 10 Feb 14

pd7 wrote…

NIMBY's

Yes, and who can blame them?

[quote][p][bold]pd7[/bold] wrote:
NIMBY's[/p][/quote]Yes, and who can blame them?speedy231278

pd7 wrote…

NIMBY's

Yes, and who can blame them?

Score: 10

live-and-let-live
2:06pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Letcommonsenseprevai
l wrote…

All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????

that only works when the council needs an excuse to stop others from doing something

[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai
l[/bold] wrote:
All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????[/p][/quote]that only works when the council needs an excuse to stop others from doing somethinglive-and-let-live

Letcommonsenseprevai
l wrote…

All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????

that only works when the council needs an excuse to stop others from doing something

Score: 3

JayJay45
2:20pm Mon 10 Feb 14

So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval!

So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval!JayJay45

So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval!

Score: 10

Baysider
2:21pm Mon 10 Feb 14

mw2010 wrote…

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)

Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.

[quote][p][bold]mw2010[/bold] wrote:
Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)[/p][/quote]Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.Baysider

mw2010 wrote…

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)

Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.

Score: -5

Dr Strangelove
2:28pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Who do they work for or rather serve? Not the voters so don't vote for them next time round vote for an independent or turn up but spoil the paper when voting.

Who do they work for or rather serve? Not the voters so don't vote for them next time round vote for an independent or turn up but spoil the paper when voting.Dr Strangelove

Who do they work for or rather serve? Not the voters so don't vote for them next time round vote for an independent or turn up but spoil the paper when voting.

Score: 10

Jo__Go
3:10pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Baysider wrote…

mw2010 wrote…

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)

Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.

I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....

[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mw2010[/bold] wrote:
Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)[/p][/quote]Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.[/p][/quote]I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....Jo__Go

Baysider wrote…

mw2010 wrote…

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)

Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.

I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....

Score: 8

cromwell9
3:35pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Job done.Thanks Lib Dems,
The travelers wont use it ,They will proberly park out side the houses in the road ,As long as they are taxed and insured ,
Come to think of it they might park on my front lawn ,
Then i will have to get a court order to move them on .At my exspence.

Job done.Thanks Lib Dems,
The travelers wont use it ,They will proberly park out side the houses in the road ,As long as they are taxed and insured ,
Come to think of it they might park on my front lawn ,
Then i will have to get a court order to move them on .At my exspence.cromwell9

Job done.Thanks Lib Dems,
The travelers wont use it ,They will proberly park out side the houses in the road ,As long as they are taxed and insured ,
Come to think of it they might park on my front lawn ,
Then i will have to get a court order to move them on .At my exspence.

Score: 4

DorsetFerret
3:51pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Jo__Go wrote…

Baysider wrote…

mw2010 wrote…

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)

Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.

I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....

I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions about money being involved but I wonder how many funny handshakes have been taking place?

[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mw2010[/bold] wrote:
Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)[/p][/quote]Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.[/p][/quote]I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....[/p][/quote]I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions about money being involved but I wonder how many funny handshakes have been taking place?DorsetFerret

Jo__Go wrote…

Baysider wrote…

mw2010 wrote…

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)

Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.

I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....

I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions about money being involved but I wonder how many funny handshakes have been taking place?

Score: 4

dustbindanny
5:17pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Creekmoor residents, I hope you will welcome your new neighbours, Bunting , Balloons Flags etc, after all it's your Council tax that will be paying for this?and what,s the betting this years tax will be increased.? We the tax paying public are ' mugs' these Councils do not work for the people that ' put the money in the pot' ...!

Creekmoor residents, I hope you will welcome your new neighbours, Bunting , Balloons Flags etc, after all it's your Council tax that will be paying for this?and what,s the betting this years tax will be increased.? We the tax paying public are ' mugs' these Councils do not work for the people that ' put the money in the pot' ...!dustbindanny

Creekmoor residents, I hope you will welcome your new neighbours, Bunting , Balloons Flags etc, after all it's your Council tax that will be paying for this?and what,s the betting this years tax will be increased.? We the tax paying public are ' mugs' these Councils do not work for the people that ' put the money in the pot' ...!

Score: 5

smhinto
6:18pm Mon 10 Feb 14

As I have stated in an earlier post. Why was'nt the Council refuse tips not utilised as a transit area for these (whatever you want to call them) as they could not possibly make any more mess and stench other than that of which is already there.
.
Or could they ??
.
They could steal as much as they wanted as it would have been other people's throw away items anyway.
.
So everyone's a winner i.e. the Council would not have to pay for a site to be developed. All the mess and stench would be contained in a refuse tip of which is fit for purpose. Lastly, these (whatever you want to call them) could be contained in an area where they would not annoy the general law abiding populous.
.
It's a no brainer!!

As I have stated in an earlier post. Why was'nt the Council refuse tips not utilised as a transit area for these (whatever you want to call them) as they could not possibly make any more mess and stench other than that of which is already there.
.
Or could they ??
.
They could steal as much as they wanted as it would have been other people's throw away items anyway.
.
So everyone's a winner i.e. the Council would not have to pay for a site to be developed. All the mess and stench would be contained in a refuse tip of which is fit for purpose. Lastly, these (whatever you want to call them) could be contained in an area where they would not annoy the general law abiding populous.
.
It's a no brainer!!smhinto

As I have stated in an earlier post. Why was'nt the Council refuse tips not utilised as a transit area for these (whatever you want to call them) as they could not possibly make any more mess and stench other than that of which is already there.
.
Or could they ??
.
They could steal as much as they wanted as it would have been other people's throw away items anyway.
.
So everyone's a winner i.e. the Council would not have to pay for a site to be developed. All the mess and stench would be contained in a refuse tip of which is fit for purpose. Lastly, these (whatever you want to call them) could be contained in an area where they would not annoy the general law abiding populous.
.
It's a no brainer!!

Score: 3

davecook
7:10pm Mon 10 Feb 14

JayJay45 wrote…

So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval!

This is an area which was reclaimed using rubbish and infill from various building projects a few years ago when the Upton Bypass was built. Suddenly it might become an important wildlife area. The only wildlife I have seen here recently when walking round the edge of Holes Bay was a load of rats scurrying about. Whilst I appreciate Natural England are obsessed with frilly lizards and pink spotted snakes or whatever floats their boat, I hardly think they will waste much time protecting a family of rattus norvegicus.......

[quote][p][bold]JayJay45[/bold] wrote:
So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval![/p][/quote]This is an area which was reclaimed using rubbish and infill from various building projects a few years ago when the Upton Bypass was built. Suddenly it might become an important wildlife area. The only wildlife I have seen here recently when walking round the edge of Holes Bay was a load of rats scurrying about. Whilst I appreciate Natural England are obsessed with frilly lizards and pink spotted snakes or whatever floats their boat, I hardly think they will waste much time protecting a family of rattus norvegicus.......davecook

JayJay45 wrote…

So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval!

This is an area which was reclaimed using rubbish and infill from various building projects a few years ago when the Upton Bypass was built. Suddenly it might become an important wildlife area. The only wildlife I have seen here recently when walking round the edge of Holes Bay was a load of rats scurrying about. Whilst I appreciate Natural England are obsessed with frilly lizards and pink spotted snakes or whatever floats their boat, I hardly think they will waste much time protecting a family of rattus norvegicus.......

Score: -1

tramp_about_town
7:55pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Letcommonsenseprevai
l wrote…

All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????

Forget protected species, they should be checking for Japanese Knotweed. Rife around there! Clearing that up would blow the budget.

[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai
l[/bold] wrote:
All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????[/p][/quote]Forget protected species, they should be checking for Japanese Knotweed. Rife around there! Clearing that up would blow the budget.tramp_about_town

Letcommonsenseprevai
l wrote…

All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????

Forget protected species, they should be checking for Japanese Knotweed. Rife around there! Clearing that up would blow the budget.

Score: 0

apm1954
8:15pm Mon 10 Feb 14

i expect cllr eades , "the mayor" has been down there with his strimmer, seeing it was his idea to lump this on creekmoor.

i expect cllr eades , "the mayor" has been down there with his strimmer, seeing it was his idea to lump this on creekmoor.apm1954

i expect cllr eades , "the mayor" has been down there with his strimmer, seeing it was his idea to lump this on creekmoor.

Score: 2

Baysider
8:41pm Mon 10 Feb 14

smhinto wrote…

As I have stated in an earlier post. Why was'nt the Council refuse tips not utilised as a transit area for these (whatever you want to call them) as they could not possibly make any more mess and stench other than that of which is already there.
.
Or could they ??
.
They could steal as much as they wanted as it would have been other people's throw away items anyway.
.
So everyone's a winner i.e. the Council would not have to pay for a site to be developed. All the mess and stench would be contained in a refuse tip of which is fit for purpose. Lastly, these (whatever you want to call them) could be contained in an area where they would not annoy the general law abiding populous.
.
It's a no brainer!!

...yes well you would recognise a no brainer better than most wouldn't you!

[quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote:
As I have stated in an earlier post. Why was'nt the Council refuse tips not utilised as a transit area for these (whatever you want to call them) as they could not possibly make any more mess and stench other than that of which is already there.
.
Or could they ??
.
They could steal as much as they wanted as it would have been other people's throw away items anyway.
.
So everyone's a winner i.e. the Council would not have to pay for a site to be developed. All the mess and stench would be contained in a refuse tip of which is fit for purpose. Lastly, these (whatever you want to call them) could be contained in an area where they would not annoy the general law abiding populous.
.
It's a no brainer!![/p][/quote]...yes well you would recognise a no brainer better than most wouldn't you!Baysider

smhinto wrote…

As I have stated in an earlier post. Why was'nt the Council refuse tips not utilised as a transit area for these (whatever you want to call them) as they could not possibly make any more mess and stench other than that of which is already there.
.
Or could they ??
.
They could steal as much as they wanted as it would have been other people's throw away items anyway.
.
So everyone's a winner i.e. the Council would not have to pay for a site to be developed. All the mess and stench would be contained in a refuse tip of which is fit for purpose. Lastly, these (whatever you want to call them) could be contained in an area where they would not annoy the general law abiding populous.
.
It's a no brainer!!

...yes well you would recognise a no brainer better than most wouldn't you!

Score: 3

Baysider
8:48pm Mon 10 Feb 14

DorsetFerret wrote…

Jo__Go wrote…

Baysider wrote…

mw2010 wrote…

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)

Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.

I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....

I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions about money being involved but I wonder how many funny handshakes have been taking place?

...so the previous poster wasn't brave enough and inventive enough to name someone and come up with any remotely plausible explanation for how bribery might be involved and now we are having allegations that masonry is involved? In a temporary traveller sight.

Echo readers are a pretty special bunch.

[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mw2010[/bold] wrote:
Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)[/p][/quote]Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.[/p][/quote]I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....[/p][/quote]I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions about money being involved but I wonder how many funny handshakes have been taking place?[/p][/quote]...so the previous poster wasn't brave enough and inventive enough to name someone and come up with any remotely plausible explanation for how bribery might be involved and now we are having allegations that masonry is involved? In a temporary traveller sight.
Echo readers are a pretty special bunch.Baysider

DorsetFerret wrote…

Jo__Go wrote…

Baysider wrote…

mw2010 wrote…

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)

Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.

I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....

I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions about money being involved but I wonder how many funny handshakes have been taking place?

...so the previous poster wasn't brave enough and inventive enough to name someone and come up with any remotely plausible explanation for how bribery might be involved and now we are having allegations that masonry is involved? In a temporary traveller sight.

Echo readers are a pretty special bunch.

Score: -1

peterm8264
10:33pm Mon 10 Feb 14

why not stop the petty wrangling and get down to the facts ,the council are looking for a get out clause to the problem of moving travellers on ,unfortunately they have gone about it in an undemocratic way and upset all the residents of the area by trying to use a soft target now after the first application , the other one comes along for the back of B and Q .lets get to the point it is a total waste of tax payers money and will be rejected by the travellers anyway .Councellor Eades does not want it in his ward so someone else has to have it at any expense.Mr mayor , why not come to the local meeting and see the feelings that you have stirred up or are you too scared about the 3 minute rule,and the gypsy community.

why not stop the petty wrangling and get down to the facts ,the council are looking for a get out clause to the problem of moving travellers on ,unfortunately they have gone about it in an undemocratic way and upset all the residents of the area by trying to use a soft target now after the first application , the other one comes along for the back of B and Q .lets get to the point it is a total waste of tax payers money and will be rejected by the travellers anyway .Councellor Eades does not want it in his ward so someone else has to have it at any expense.Mr mayor , why not come to the local meeting and see the feelings that you have stirred up or are you too scared about the 3 minute rule,and the gypsy community.peterm8264

why not stop the petty wrangling and get down to the facts ,the council are looking for a get out clause to the problem of moving travellers on ,unfortunately they have gone about it in an undemocratic way and upset all the residents of the area by trying to use a soft target now after the first application , the other one comes along for the back of B and Q .lets get to the point it is a total waste of tax payers money and will be rejected by the travellers anyway .Councellor Eades does not want it in his ward so someone else has to have it at any expense.Mr mayor , why not come to the local meeting and see the feelings that you have stirred up or are you too scared about the 3 minute rule,and the gypsy community.

Score: 3

Teddy 1
11:32am Tue 11 Feb 14

I would like to see a published list of the other 90 sites which were apparently unsuitable and why that decision was made.

Why is the mannings heath site not a contender as an existing site?

Why has the site not been surveyed for wildlife first? Surley this is out of order and some sort of offence!

We have a good soil analysis company in Dorset, why not ask them to analysethe soil to see if it is toxic to live on.

why is the council forging ahead with public opinion so against the location?

Why is the council hiding the consultation document in the planning process safety pages as another commenter suggested?

can the echo run an Freedom of information request to see ALL documentatiin (including all correspondence between councillors and council officers etc) this is all public information and withholding information is an offence).

Are the echo going to be running a headline story exposing the above points!

I would like to see a published list of the other 90 sites which were apparently unsuitable and why that decision was made.
Why is the mannings heath site not a contender as an existing site?
Why has the site not been surveyed for wildlife first? Surley this is out of order and some sort of offence!
We have a good soil analysis company in Dorset, why not ask them to analysethe soil to see if it is toxic to live on.
why is the council forging ahead with public opinion so against the location?
Why is the council hiding the consultation document in the planning process safety pages as another commenter suggested?
can the echo run an Freedom of information request to see ALL documentatiin (including all correspondence between councillors and council officers etc) this is all public information and withholding information is an offence).
Are the echo going to be running a headline story exposing the above points!Teddy 1

I would like to see a published list of the other 90 sites which were apparently unsuitable and why that decision was made.

Why is the mannings heath site not a contender as an existing site?

Why has the site not been surveyed for wildlife first? Surley this is out of order and some sort of offence!

We have a good soil analysis company in Dorset, why not ask them to analysethe soil to see if it is toxic to live on.

why is the council forging ahead with public opinion so against the location?

Why is the council hiding the consultation document in the planning process safety pages as another commenter suggested?

can the echo run an Freedom of information request to see ALL documentatiin (including all correspondence between councillors and council officers etc) this is all public information and withholding information is an offence).

Are the echo going to be running a headline story exposing the above points!

Score: 5

DorsetFerret
3:36pm Tue 11 Feb 14

davecook wrote…

JayJay45 wrote…

So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval!

This is an area which was reclaimed using rubbish and infill from various building projects a few years ago when the Upton Bypass was built. Suddenly it might become an important wildlife area. The only wildlife I have seen here recently when walking round the edge of Holes Bay was a load of rats scurrying about. Whilst I appreciate Natural England are obsessed with frilly lizards and pink spotted snakes or whatever floats their boat, I hardly think they will waste much time protecting a family of rattus norvegicus.......

Are you quite sure they are rattus norvegicus and not Arvicola amphibius (Water Vole)? This could make a huge difference for claiming protected status. Perhaps you have also noticed the Marsh Buzzard in the area, both species would explain this.

[quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JayJay45[/bold] wrote:
So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval![/p][/quote]This is an area which was reclaimed using rubbish and infill from various building projects a few years ago when the Upton Bypass was built. Suddenly it might become an important wildlife area. The only wildlife I have seen here recently when walking round the edge of Holes Bay was a load of rats scurrying about. Whilst I appreciate Natural England are obsessed with frilly lizards and pink spotted snakes or whatever floats their boat, I hardly think they will waste much time protecting a family of rattus norvegicus.......[/p][/quote]Are you quite sure they are rattus norvegicus and not Arvicola amphibius (Water Vole)? This could make a huge difference for claiming protected status. Perhaps you have also noticed the Marsh Buzzard in the area, both species would explain this.DorsetFerret

davecook wrote…

JayJay45 wrote…

So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval!

This is an area which was reclaimed using rubbish and infill from various building projects a few years ago when the Upton Bypass was built. Suddenly it might become an important wildlife area. The only wildlife I have seen here recently when walking round the edge of Holes Bay was a load of rats scurrying about. Whilst I appreciate Natural England are obsessed with frilly lizards and pink spotted snakes or whatever floats their boat, I hardly think they will waste much time protecting a family of rattus norvegicus.......

Are you quite sure they are rattus norvegicus and not Arvicola amphibius (Water Vole)? This could make a huge difference for claiming protected status. Perhaps you have also noticed the Marsh Buzzard in the area, both species would explain this.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here